US Features
ANALYSIS: Obama-Clinton battle at historic social crossroads
Mar 4, 2008, 15:50 GMT
Washington - The high-pitched historic battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama reached another crossroads on Tuesday in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont - one that has been 40 years in the making and presents many Democrats with a difficult choice.
As Democratic voters went to the polls, it was not clear if Senator Clinton, 60, would still be standing in the bid to become the country's first woman presidential nominee. First election results were expected after 0200 Wednesday.
Clinton could fold, as some in the party are urging her to do, against the charismatic Senator Obama, 46, who wants to become the first black nominee and is riding high on 11 straight wins.
Or she could continue on, as she promised to do Monday: 'I'm just getting warmed up.'
Either way, she's still given a chance at the nomination even though she lags slightly in delegates, thanks to the role the Democratic Party has played as the crucible for black and female empowerment.
In the 1960s, as the black civil rights movement inspired women to start thinking about their own oppression, the Democratic Party changed its rules to allocate presidential nomination delegates according to the percentage of popular primary votes in most states.
That means Clinton could still pull ahead in the remaining dozen or so primary votes or even with support from super delegates - elected officials and former presidents - at the convention in August in Denver.
Republicans continue with their winner-take all rule on state delegates, meaning Tuesday is a walk-through for Senator John McCain, 71, who was expected to tighten an already vice-like grip on his party's nomination.
For many in the Democratic Party, the Clinton-Obama race is both the logical, laudable result of decades of US social change and at the same time an excruciating embarrassment of political riches that has made for some hard choices - especially for politically active women and black people.
One Clinton supporter, Richelle Harrison, an African-American woman in her 40s, felt the crunch first hand as she stood earlier this month with a 'Hillary' sign at a busy subway station near the White House in Washington, on the eve of regional primaries.
A middle-age man, also African-American, walked past carrying a computer case over his shoulder, and yelled: 'Obama for Change! Hillary is just Bill's ticket back to the White House.'
Harrison, a webcasting technology specialist, said it was a typical reaction.
'As an African-American, my family and friends have been saying, 'How can you do this? You should be on Obama's side',' she said. 'But I truly believe she is the best candidate. I hear what (Obama) says, and I don't believe he's ready to be president.'
In the beginning, it was not clear what black elected leaders who had worked closely with Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, would do, but as Obama won state after state victory, they swung their support to him.
Congressman John Lewis, a leader in the civil rights movement and longtime Clinton friend, shocked the Clinton campaign when he threw his support behind Obama, saying he could 'never, ever do anything to reverse the action' of the voters in his district in Georgia.
'I think the candidacy of Senator Obama represents the beginning of a new movement in American political history that began in the hearts and minds of the people of this nation,' he was quoted as saying. 'And I want to be on the side of the people.'
Robin Morgan, 67, a radical feminist, came to politics through the civil rights and peace movements during the 1950s and 1960s. In a recent essay, she described her anger at a heckler who screamed: 'Iron my shirt!' at Clinton during a rally in New Hampshire, which provoked only light-hearted humour in the media.
A similar racist barb at Obama, she wrote, would have 'inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonour.'
'Not since the suffrage struggle have two communities - the joint conscience-keepers of this country - been so set in competition, as the contest between ... Clinton and ... Obama,' she wrote.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
SEE OBAMAS CONNECTION WITH SADDAM HUSSEN AND REZKO!
Land deal 'mistake' piles the pressure on Obama Mr Auchi, leading supplier of arms to Saddam's regime and convicted for corruption in France, the British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions and millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fund just weeks before an imprudent land deal investigation. In addition money transfer from Nadhmi Auchi, Obama used to buy his Georgian mansion in Chicago. Mr. Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million!!!. Mr. Auchi's money was made doing business with the regime of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Auchi was a leading supplier of arms to Saddam's regime. A former Belgian ambassador to Luxembourg charged that a bank in Luxembourg owned principally by Mr. Auchi laundered funds -- including oil for food money -- for Saddam and other Islamic dictators. Auchi helped French and Italian firms win a huge oil pipeline contract in Iraq, chiefly by paying off Iraqi officials, according to testimony given by an Italian banker to prosecutors in Milan. In 2003, he was convicted for his role in what was then the largest scandal in French history, involving payoffs from executives of the oil company now known as Total to political figures in Spain, Germany and Africa.. The connection between Mr. Auchi and Sen. Obama is cause for great concern in the U.S. The national news media have been remarkably incurious about Sen. Obama's relationship with Mr. Rezko, and his with Mr. Auchi. The Obamas bought the house for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price -- perhaps because Mr. Rezko's wife purchased from the owner an adjacent garden plot for $625,000. (The sellers deny they offered the Obamas a discount.) The Times of London wondered where Mrs. Rezko got the money to buy the garden plot. At the time, she had a salary of $37,000 and assets of only $35,000, the Times learned. Her husband told a court that at the time he had 'no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets,' the Times said. Auchi participated in more than just Rezko's pizza and property ventures, however; he also contributed to Barack Obama's campaign by donating to a 2005 fundraiser through a company of which is wife is a Director. I quote the relevant paragraph from a London Times exclusive: Times has, however, discovered state documents in Illinois recording that the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA lent money to Mr Obama's fundraiser. Fintrade's directors include Ibtisam Auchi, the name of Mr Auchi's wife. Mr Auchi's spokesman declined to respond to a question about whether he was linked to this business. The donation is significant, obama is the Ill politican mentioned in the following ABC News report on the FBI affidavit filed in US Attorney Fitzgerald's case against Rezko before Obama's political godfather was arrested on Monday: According to an FBI affidavit filed in the case, Rezko sought to get a visa for Auchi to visit the United States by contacting 'the same Illinois government official (Obama).
OBAMA WOULD VOTE FOR HILLARY!
I think very highly of Hillary. I admire her. I think she's one of the most disciplined strong dedicated people I know. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence, and outstanding public service record, she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons and no doubt would make an excellent “President of the United Sates”. She's passionate about moving the country forward especially on issues like economy, health care and children. “Barack Obama “
... are stumping for Hillary.
They recognize the only chance they'll have in the general election is to go against someone as devisive as Hillary and they know they can't win against Obama.
What are your thoughts around Cheney and Haliburton? His stock holdings in the company, and him giving no-bid multi-billion dollar contracts to them year after year?
I wouldn't get your panties in a bunch over it.
The Clintons, in the 1990's had Sandy Berglar selling influence to oil companies all over Asia, while HE held stock in them.
They sold influence to China for campaign funds, greenlighting Nafta, GATT, WTO and MFN status for China.
They sold pardons to the likes of Marc Rich and freed Dan Rostenkowski.
Compared to the Clintons, Cheney is a boy scout. One other thing: none of what he has done is either a crime or a conflict of interest.
And don't forget that Halliburton had massive contracts under every major administration going back decades.
I'm all for more efficient and transparent procurement procedures, but the idiots who really believe that there is some evil Cheney / Halliburton conspiracy are a greater threat to this country.
It seems there's just no cure for stupid.
... Cheney has made millions from his Haliburton stock since he started giving them contracts.
re: your other comment '... Cheney is a boy scout. ... none of what he has done is either a crime or a conflict of interest.'
Your conflict of interest comment is laughable ... Uh Yeah, the guy giving no-bid contracts to a company who's stock he holds is 'no conlfict of interest' ... too funny.
And please SP4 ... list ANY crime that Obama has been charged with ...
'It seems there's just no cure for stupid.'
I know you've probably been hoping they would invent one for you since early childhood ... hang in there, they may develop a cure for you yet.
Excellent rebuttal.
Are you disputing that Halliburton/subsidiaries have done tens of millions of dollars in business with the US government prior to Bush taking office?
Obama? Oh bummer!
... that Cheney holding stock, and then awarding no-bid contracts IS a conflict of interest?
If he wanted to avoid a conflict of interest ... Why didn't he sell the stock? ... or at minimum, Why didn't he open it to competitive bids from other companies? (without an act of congress)
'that Cheney holding stock, and then awarding no-bid contracts IS a conflict of interest?'
Cheney had to sell his stock and resign his position with the company in order to take the office of vice president. 'No-bid' contracts? Who else is going to bid on the kind of things KBR does? Besides, KBR split from Halliburton.
In recent years the company has become the center of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $34 million.[25] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[26] Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes.[26] He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (in Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education. The agreement states that it is 'irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended,' preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date.
If Sen. Obama rejects the Rev. Wright’s warped view of this country, why does he continue to attend his church?
Monday, January 7, 2008 10:16 AM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
Imagine if Mitt Romney’s church proclaimed on its website that it is “unashamedly white.”
The media would pounce, and Romney’s presidential candidacy would be over. Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama’s church says on its web site — except in reverse.
“We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s website in Chicago. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
That’s just the beginning. The church has a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” according to its website, and its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. subscribes to what is called the Black Value System.
While the Black Value System includes such items as commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to “our racist competitive society” and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of “middle-classness” and a pledge of allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.” It defines “middle-classness” as a way for American society to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” just as the country structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”
In sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.
...
if Obama rejects Wright’s warped view of this country, why does he continue to attend his church, raising the question of whether Obama secretly agrees with his friend and mentor? At the least, Obama’s membership in Wright’s church suggests a lack of judgment and an insensitivity to views that are repugnant to the vast majority of white Americans who are not bigots.
That same lack of judgment has shown up in Obama’s gaffes—threatening to invade Pakistan and offering prompt negotiations with anti-American despots. More frightening, Obama voted last August to give Osama bin Laden and other terrorists the same rights as Americans when it comes to intercepting their overseas calls in order to pick up clues needed to stop another attack.
Jen Psaki, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, has tried to paper over the candidate’s support of the Black Value System by saying that Obama “believes its basic tenets of commitment to God, to community, to self-discipline and self-reliance continue to have applicability not only to the African-American community but to all people.”
But that is not what the Black Value System says. One can only imagine the outrage that would erupt if a white presidential candidate like Romney subscribed to something called the White Value System. Yet while Obama has been referred to in the media tens of thousands of times in the past month, only one story in the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire offhandedly mentioned Obama’s church’s “unashamedly black” slogan.
In contrast, in an exquisite example of the double standard they apply to Democrats versus Republicans, the media love to focus on Romney’s religion, which is not relevant to how he would perform as president. Close to half the media references to Romney refer to the fact that he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Very few of them mention that he is both a Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School graduate, credentials that are relevant to how he would perform as president.
...
If his church membership calls into question Obama’s judgment, the dichotomy in the coverage of his and Romney’s religious affiliations spotlights the media’s double standard and how its skewed reporting influences who will become president.
But media bias or not, if Obama is his party’s nominee, his Republican opponent will rightly be able to make use of Rev. Wright and his radical teachings as effectively as supporters of George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton’s furlough to help Bush win the presidency.
None of that still makes me wrong.
1) Cheney gets deferred bonuses from a legitimate position he held with Hallibuton - This is not against the law
2)Halliburton has complied with every law concerning their contracts - not against the law.
3)No investigation has ever uncovered any improprieties
So, unless you are either clairvoyant, or just another libnazi co-ks--ker, that pretty much makes you just a little more than full of crap.
And yes, Obama has the distinction of no ties to Halliburton - But let's see what unfolds with Mr. Rezko and scrutinize Obama's relationship with some major coal companies.
You can get an Obama anytime you want. This guy has been talking out both sides of his mouth(ass) now for years. In 2004 he was extolling the virtues of Nafta to Illinois farmers. Now, he think it's the boogeyman?
Funny again how SP4 is defending Cheney while the entire world knows of the ties still existing between Cheney and Haliburton,these are called loyalty ,the highest regarded asset for any person that works for corporate bussines .At the same time he is smearing Obama for something similar except it is all smear without any logic except guilt by association from knowing somebody that apparently (if proven) has done something unethical .Double standards a la sauce neocon....
Is there any reason to believe Haliburton ,Exxon,Raytheon,and others are not the only profiteers from the Bush administration?Only the top 0,1 percent of the US population have gained from the 8 years of republican governance .A few decades ago General Motors was the biggest employer in the USA,now it is Wal-Mart.I'd like our republican friends to consider how wages,pensions,health care have evolved between those years.Just compare the benefits from working for Wal-Mart with the bygone days when GM was the top employer.I hope the republicans have not lost touch with reality in such an way as to deny that living conditions and buying power have diminished in the last years .The unavoidable questions are,can any person working for Wal-Mart have their children sent to higher education ?
Do they enjoy decent health care ?
Of course not .It is high time those basic human rights (not acknowledged as such by republicans ) are introduced in politics to give every person equal opportunities .There is not a country in the world ,to my knowledge,where these tokens of a civilized society are not recognized as ssuch.
The outcome of these elctions are probably the most important issue in world politics ,because they not only influence the lives of millions of americans,,they also affect the rest of the world as nothing in the Middle East will move without an intelligent US president.I have little hope for the future as AIPAC already has Obama in it's pocket .Mc Cain seems to be yet another republican with ties to corporate bussines .The fact that he is used by Boeing in their fight with Northrop EADS is sufficient to label him as yet another republican in the hands of the corporate lobbies.
After watching the BBC and CNN for weeks on the american elections it became clear that Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the working class,the unions and the poorest parts of the american people .As this part of the population has grown ,not diminished during the last decade,it is time to give them more opportunities and rights.Health care and education or trhe real issues in this campaign.If you guys have a heart for your own population.It is all very nice to defend the symbols of a country,like your flag .But it is much more important to defend the rreal substance of your country,your own population.Some of you will feel insulted if somebody tramples your flag,a piece of cloth.Yet these verey same people do not care a bit if your poorset are trampled .Some of you are in need of real values.
'the entire world knows of the ties still existing between Cheney and Haliburton'
Why the innuendo? Are you saying that VP Cheney was involved in the procurement process that awarded Halliburton contracts? Do you know ANYTHING about government procurement? Did you ('the world') know that Halliburton/subsidiaries have been working with the government for decades? To avoid the impression of impropriety, Cheney donated all Halliburton stock profits to charities.
'he is smearing Obama for something similar'
Is this the real estate thing? I must say it is disappointing. Obama's real estate deal looks like cut and dried political corruption. Rezko's wife (with no assets) buys adjacent plot of land at above market price on the very same day that Obama purchases home at below market price from same seller. Rezko then sells land to Obama at below market value. This was planned in advance and coordinated between Obama and Rezko. There is no other plausible explanation. It is a shame that such petty corruption could derail such a talented guy - but this is corruption.
'it is all smear without any logic except guilt by association'
Wrong. Obama - Rezko is very clear and direct corruption.
'Is there any reason to believe Haliburton ,Exxon,Raytheon,and others are not the only profiteers from the Bush administration?'
Tonny, government contractors - especially defense contractors, do business with the government. Do you think this started with Bush? Is there something wrong with this? Are you implying that your glorious EU companies do not do business with EU governments???
'Only the top 0,1 percent of the US population have gained from the 8 years of republican governance.'
The world economy is undergoing massive and rapid structural change. Increasing free trade is disruptive. Bush is not to blame for world trade.
'A few decades ago General Motors was the biggest employer in the USA,now it is Wal-Mart.'
Isn't Hillary Clinton on the Walmart board?
'when GM was the top employer.'
Are you seriously contending the Bush has something to do with this? What has Bush done to make GM less competitive? I suppose he could ban imported cars...
'The outcome of these elctions are probably the most important issue in world politics'
So you want Clinton (who sat on Walmarts board) who will raise taxes to make manufacturers less competitive? Whose husband pushed for opening US markets even wider to cheap imports? Or Obama who has no track record experience at all other than blatant petty personal corruption?
'The fact that he is used by Boeing in their fight with Northrop EADS is sufficient to label him as yet another republican in the hands of the corporate lobbies.'
You are such an ass Tonny. Which senator led the fight against boeing for corruption in government procurement deals? Your total ignorance of the US is well represented in the nonsense you write.
Cheney gets deferred options from his former employer (at least until 2006). That being the case, there is a very definite tie between Cheney and Halliburton. No one disputes this. In America, Tonny, this is neither against the law or financial unethical, in all 50 states. There is not one scintilla of evidence he tampered with any contracts, no matter how many times you propagandize it.
Now, if you want to discuss ethics, let's suppose that a President sent his National Security Advisor to, say, Sandy Berg(l)ar to Kazakhstan, and, for dem campaign funds, got them greenlights with the commerce department on oil deals (AMOCO)., all the while holding AMOCO stock.
Or, my favorite, they send the VP, in this case let's say it was...Al Gore(and it was)...to get campaign funds from Chinese businessmen (read chinese intel). In return, China suddenly has Most Favored Nation status.
Then, you ramrod NAFTA, GATT, and WTO through, and business like...Enron and Boeing start bundling money for you. Add to that, White Water, FBI records scandal, and some greasy commodity trades in the 1970's and it's quite a litany, huh?
Now Cheney COULD have done these things, although not one scintilla of evidence exists that he did but...
The Clintons did ALL these things and none of them are contested. Now if some one wants to discuss Cheney and Halliburton, I want to discuss the Clintons and AMOCO.
Cheney and Hillary: Guess who's running for office?
'Your total ignorance of the US is well represented in the nonsense you write.'
He really has no idea a all of what he is talking about, yet that jasn't slowed him down at all. It is amazing.
Tonny really believes what he says, because it's faith. I understand faith, so I expect these answers.
When you are spreading a belief, you concoct stories about creation, or if it is a political religion, you concoct stories about everything from neocons to global warming. There is no fact, because faith requires none.
Liberalism is a faith for the faithless. It provides that which others already have, but using contemporary politics as it's belief base. Just watch the libnazis and then watch the evangelists or the catholic clergy and see the similarities so thick you can spread them with a knife.
It's faith, not fact. If stupidity is involved it's Tonny not recognizing it for what it is.
SP4 is a reporter.
Is it so difficult to understand what is written.For clarity this :.I never said the military industrial complex started with Bush .The first to see the alarming signs of it was Eisenhower .It should be clear that corporate business runs the country whoever is in charge,but there are a few differences.Reagan an Bush are both the biggest military spenders in history .Mc Cain ,the next presidential candidate is just another proxy from the armament dealers.One example,found in the usual neocon press and posted as a billboard sign to show his patriotism was the fact that he was the only one to call for an investigating the contracts handed out to Northrop-EADS in theit struggle for the airtanker contracts against Boeing .In fact he was the only one who recieved information from Boeing and allowed himself to be used by them ?A bas omen,especially in combination with his statement that the troops are to remain in Vietnam ...ooops I meant Iraq for hundred years if necessary .If necessary ?What does that mean ?Did anybody even care to ask the Iraqi people about that ?I guess not they are negligible quantity in his equation .And so he creates the scenario for continuation of excessive military spending by pursuing yet another war that can not be won.
That is the tenure of my arguments .Very different from the stuff you ,SP4 ;lie in my mouth .Probably because it is easier to combat somebody if you are allowed to make up his own mind .What a clown you are....
As for the legal ties between Haliburton and Cheney,read again what I said about loyalty .Don't always twist my words,ok ?
The libanzi needs these myths to perpetuate their beliefs. Eisenhower is a good example: Someone thinks the military-industrial establishment started after WWII when it was the liberal intelligista that started it with the beginning of WWII under Roosevelt. In fact, it was Eisenhower who warned us about it.
It's undeniable that the Manhatten ptoject was the forerunner of all of this. The liberal elite, knowng full well the outcome, went headlong into making weapons of mass destruction, most of the progenators being card carrying communists.
After the war, everyone got into the act. By 1950, these same folks were now trying to convince everyone they were peace activists, when they were just communists. The right, correctly, pointed this out and the left invented McCarthyism. Old Joe was an asshole, to be sure, but that did not make him wrong.
This branding of the right as some kind of managers of the MIC was started to deflect the real progenators. Kennedy had his missile gap (it never existed) and Johnson his Vietnam war. Carter pushed the Trident System and so goes the story.
But liberals go on and on, trying to convince us that, somehow, conservatives make war all by themselves.
Today it's Iraq. They greenlight the whole mess and then try to blame the other side of the aisle. The same for Nafta, they greenlight it and then try to tell everyone it was the republicans. Pillory Cheney, Bush and anyone else with anything to make it stick. Try every empty political trick to make someone look bad. We expect it now.
And it works, because some of you will believe it. There will be a day when you want this constituants support and they will treat you as you have treated them.
Quoting the article:'A middle-age man, also African-American, walked past carrying a computer case over his shoulder, and yelled: 'Obama for Change! Hillary is just Bill's ticket back to the White House.''
Right on target. The Clintons are running for an unconstitutional third term.
...list any crime Cheney has been charged with....
Hillary repeatedly claims to have acted as President while debating with Senator Obama. Perhaps she has in her own mind, but does my charge hold up to serious scrutiny? Has she already acted as President during the two terms of her husband, Bill Clinton or are her claims false? Clearly, she's damned either way and she is either lying or she his running for an unconstitutional third term.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/trailmix/march2008/hillary-clinton-nation al-security-vet.htm
The London Daily Telegraph challenges The Clintons' veracity, rather like shooting trapped in a rain barrel, while refuting my complaint.
You read it. You decide.
otherwise, she was no more than a hostess, not exactly preisdential credentials. Nonetheless, she still has more exec experience than Barak.
Hillary was the do-it for Bill all those years. She was the breadwinner, she pushed the staffs around, she kept the law off him, hid and destroyed documents, and did all the dirty stuff. She would be a better president than him.
RE:'Is it so difficult to understand what is written.For clarity this :.I never said the military industrial complex started with Bush .The first to see the alarming signs of it was Eisenhower .'
Yes, Tonny, we all know that you don't like us because we insist on keeping and bearing arms. Too bad for you.
RE:'It should be clear that corporate business runs the country whoever is in charge,but there are a few differences.'
If you would deign to look at our budget, you would immediately realize that socialist run this country, not corporations.
RE:Reagan an Bush are both the biggest military spenders in history .'
Reagan, yes. Bush, not hardly. Military spending is still dangerously low.
RE:'Mc Cain ,the next presidential candidate is just another proxy from the armament dealers.One example,found in the usual neocon press and posted as a billboard sign to show his patriotism was the fact that he was the only one to call for an investigating the contracts handed out to Northrop-EADS in theit struggle for the air tanker contracts against Boeing .In fact he was the only one who recieved information from Boeing and allowed himself to be used by them ?'
I don't know where you get this bullshit, Tonny, but it is as false as it comes:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/08/ap/politics/main3919392.shtml
Snippet:''Angry Boeing supporters are vowing revenge against Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Chicago-based Boeing's loss of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the parent company of European plane maker Airbus.
There are other targets for their ire _ the Air Force, the defense secretary and even the entire Bush administration.
But Boeing supporters in Congress are directing their wrath at McCain, the Arizona senator and nominee in waiting, for scuttling an earlier deal that would have let Boeing build the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. Boeing now will miss out on a deal that it says would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at the company and suppliers in 40 states.''
If you would take the trouble to actually learns something about the United States, Tonny, you might realize that your leftist buddies are completely detached from reality. Alas, you seem to be a floating abstraction in and of yourself so perhaps that would not work either. No matter. I have never been able to ride by a windmill without having a go at it. Let's look at some history here.
The United States Air Force developed a severe dislike for Boeing during the development and deployment of the B-29 bomber, way back in WWII. Since that time, their relationship with Boeing has NOT improved. USAF influence was the MAJOR reason we got a Rockwell space shuttle instead of a Boeing space shuttle, okay? There is no love lost between Boeing and the USAF, even though our best and longest-lived bombers came from, guess who, Boeing.
After the B-52 contract ended, Boeing has gotten very little in the way of business from the USAF. Nearly all of their profits have come from the design and construction of civilian aircraft. The only large airframes the USAF has been buying from Boeing are civilian aircraft converted into tankers. The USAF even went out of its way to avoid buying from Boeing and bought Douglas DC-10 airframes for its larger tankers, even though the DC-10 is a perfectly awful tanker, especially when refueling bombers.
Boeing has not been given a large contract by the USAF since the deal they made to use Boeing 707's as the KC-135 back in 1957. The lease of Boeing 767's as tankers instead of outright purchase was rooted in the silly parsimony of Sec. Def. Rumsfeld. He was an exceedingly bad leader. Come to that so is the Busbaby.
Now the USAF has seen fit to rescue EADS from its A-380 folly. Ask me if I am pleased or impressed. No, I am neither pleased nor am I impressed. Boeing builds the best large airframes in the world. No other aircraft maker in the world, including US airframe makers, can lay a glove on them in this field. The Bushbaby's minions and the USAF are playing the role of perfect fools on this one.
RE:'A bas omen,especially in combination with his statement that the troops are to remain in Vietnam ...ooops I meant Iraq for hundred years if necessary .If necessary ?What does that mean ?'
It means, Tonny, that we will stay there and maintain order in Iraq just as we have in the Republic of Korea. And, yes, Tonny, it means that the United States will continue to build up its military to the size it needs to be. Go ahead, feel free to be upset. The fact that it upsets you confirms that this is the best thing we could do. You hate us. We know that. You will not persuade us to disarm. Go fly a kite.
RE:'Did anybody even care to ask the Iraqi people about that ?'
You do not ask a mentally incompetent patient to make important decisions. You wait until they have regained their faculties.
RE:'I guess not they are negligible quantity in his equation .'
WRONG! They are the true matter of importance.
RE:'And so he creates the scenario for continuation of excessive military spending by pursuing yet another war that can not be won.'
Now you are lying. The 'war' can be won and we are winning it. I know you don't like that, but again, too bad for you.
RE:'That is the tenure of my arguments .'
Only professors get tenure, Tonny.
RE:'Don't always twist my words,ok ?'
You are the true grand master of Twist, Tonny. I think everyone habituating these forums will readily cede that crown to you without a qualm.
My relative is in grad school. One of the other students has a child entering high school. He's bright, but the school system, a model of what liberal politics has built in city schools, sucks. The city, a rampant libnazi stronghold, has charter schools, but since he's white, he's virtually last to be accepted.
My relative tells this guy, a model of liberal loyalty, 'gee, I guess that makes the political right's voucher system look pretty good about now, huh?'
He just looks blindly at my relative and says 'oh, thats not it!'. Here is a guy victimized by fed ed, runaway unionized education, liberal racism, all facilitated by the liberal intelligista of this nation for 45 years and he is unwilling to concede they f--ked him.
If a libnazi will do this to themselves, why would we get logic on any other subject form the likes of these robots? Tonny epitomizes these folks. His slavish devotion to his beliefs ranks as religion, not science or politics.
..the whole end game here is not the environment or healthcare it's power. By ceding all this to regulators, you give up freedoms. The president of the Czec republic said that yesterday in a WSJ op ed piece. He knows once he's on board with the EU, it's all in their hands.
So do we.
I must have hit a nerve when I said the corporate tycoons are running the show more than ever .The reactions I've got from the neocon claque are indicative enough of that.Trying to deny it by saying Boeing is on bad terms with the Pentagon because of the B-29 since WW2 is of course completely ridiculous .Why not say that those guys are toddlers with nothing but childish behavior.Realy you neocons must learn some logics and sense of reality if you want to convince .But I must say I'm very amused with SP4 consistent accusations of faith as a motivation for my postings .
I love it when Noharness claims the USA is not spending enough on armament .Half the world budget on weapons is spent by the USA ?Sincerely,are you neocons at war with the other halve of the world ?There used to be times when the military industrial complex had to dish out lies like the military supremacy of the USSR to justify spending your national resources on armament.What will it be now ;Terrorism ?The need to defend your european partners ?
..heard that before.
Neocons (born after 1962???)
Tychoons (what is this, the 1800s?)
Too much spent on defense (until Pearl Harbor, Korea or Iraq rolls up)
YEP, EVERYONE HATES WEAPONS BUYS UNTIL THE FIRST ONE SLIDES OFF THE RACKS.
Be sure to remember Kennedy's missile gap, Carters Trident system, or Johnson's Vietnam war, and Billy Clinton capping Serbs in Bosnia.
Neocons....war??? I guess you've never heard of Harry Truman...
RE:'I must have hit a nerve when I said the corporate tycoons are running the show more than ever .The reactions I've got from the neocon claque are indicative enough of that.'
Which of us are you calling neo-cons, Tonny? Once again you demonstrate your ignorance for everyone to see.
RE:'Trying to deny it by saying Boeing is on bad terms with the Pentagon because of the B-29 since WW2 is of course completely ridiculous .'
The truth is very often ridiculous, Tonny. Boeing got the B-47 contract largely because of one relatively junior procurement officer standing his ground over the performance of the Boeing design. Air crews HATED the B-47. It was a dangerous airplane to fly, but Boeing again came up with the best design for the B-52 in 1955. Since that time, Boeing has not been awarded one of the more serious bomber contracts. They lost on the Shuttle program, they lost the B-1 program and they lost the B-2 program. USAF initially purchased a slightly down-sized version of the Boeing 707 as the KC-135 tanker in 1957, but Boeing was at that time building better large jet powered airframes than anybody else at the time. They are still building superior large jets.
USAF chose the DC-10 over Boeing's redoubtable 747 in 1975, even though the DC-10 was demonstrably a horrible airplane for refueling operations. The DC-10's third engine was especially hard on bombers trying to refuel from it.
RE:'Why not say that those guys are toddlers with nothing but childish behavior.'
They very often are.
RE:'I love it when Noharness claims the USA is not spending enough on armament .'
You haven't been paying attention to what has been happening to our soldiers here of late, have you? Oh, but wait, they aren't your troops so you don't really care. Why should you?
RE:'Half the world budget on weapons is spent by the USA ?Sincerely,are you neocons at war with the other halve of the world ?'
The neo-cons are at war with everybody as far as I can tell. The rest of us understand that we do not actually have allies we can count on and understand that we must make up for that lack. Were it up to me, the very first act of the next President of the United States would be the dissolution of NATO. Europe is, as far as I am concerned, indefensible and already lost and has not been of any real use to us for decades.
page: 1
I'd likeMar 4th, 2008 - 16:09:31
to be the first to congratulate Hillary Clinton for being the first Female president of the USA. Congratulations Hillary;)
Report this comment